|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:Well, I don't think that the way people perceive reality is fixed, but regardless of it's variation, it is the 'parameter' in the moral equation determining how to treat one another. I'm having trouble making sense of the other part of your message. Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote:What do you mean by discovering "what works" What does it mean to 'work'? This can only mean that you acknowledge a type of moral ideal, but what is it based on? What principle? In your view our basic emotions must also tell us that women are inferior and slavery must be okay because that is what we did for thousands of years, and still do in many societies. You cannot tell these societies that they are in the moral wrong, only that we have something that might be better--but that is merely our opinion and they can do whatever they want and still be moral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
TC writes:
Apparently not because your opinion is that things are not, in themselves, good or evil. They are only treated as such, and such treatment is tentative And yet we both agree - and so would anyone reading this thread - that the holocaust was wrong and saving a baby from death is right. How do you explain that? (Btw, things can't be evil - actions can be)
How do you demonstrate that the holocaust was evil? I don't have to demonstrate it, I know it. It's a messy human emotion not a computer algorithm or logic puzzle that can be solved using the power of thought alone.
In my case it is blatantly obvious. I must have missed your case. what was it?
In your case it seems totally unclear. If the axis powers won, what they did might have been considered a moral duty. No. There are some actions that are black and white and some that are shades of grey. Saving the baby is normally a clear decision. Saving the baby whist killing the mother is not at all clear. Genocide is always wrong - we all know that. But was the human sacrifice of the Aztecs wrong? Can't tell from here - all I can say is that it certainly feels wrong to me now.
If your view is correct we have nothing to say to Saudi Arabia or North Korea about their politics, except that we don't like their methods and that we think ours are better. Of course we can say what we think about actions that are harmful to others no matter where we find them. That's the only test we have, but it doesn't fit neatly into some set of absolute rules that you appear to need it to.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
The norm? No wonder you have such difficulties in these forums. You don't speak the english none too good. In your own diagram, there is not one, NOT ONE, county where the single female head is over 50%.
You got me there.I'm none too good in the Humanities, but then you liberals who are most all in that College aren't so good with numbers, either. The map I gave you says in the legend that 22.5% of the kids in Arkansas lived in fatherless families in 2000AD. THAT was 12 years ago. True to my comment, that Arkansas was headed towards 50%, in 2010, the last census shows a 50% increase of Single Mothers raising bastards which means two years ago 36.2% were living without an authoritative figure in the home. Another increase, at that rate, will mean more than half Arkansas will be rasied on Welfare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Well, I don't think that the way people perceive reality is fixed, but regardless of it's variation, it is the 'parameter' in the moral equation determining how to treat one another. I'm having trouble making sense of the other part of your message.
I thought you were saying that pople have perceptions that ar thei basis for Attitudes. Attitudes are idea which doi not change, acording to psychology. So, I said that I understood you to mean that: one of the facts of Reality (and Reality consists of whatever IS factual), is that societies have social forces based upon Group Mentalies which tend to be real and fixed and related to what they they beiele is moral behavoior. No?You meant something else?? Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
You obviously missed where I said that: "morality is instinctual" (we are born with the base emotions that allow us to empathise with others which forms the start point of our morality), .... and is informed by our society and community and that it is developmental. We have developed skills that transcend generations - ie language and writing, so that the generation following us can learn from us and society can progress - instead of rediscovering what works every time.
This observation seems very important. It has been a function of evolution, that our species has been collecting an storing information about our relationships with each other, developing concepts which become part of an Unconscious body of information about what seems like instinctual behaviors for our species.Emotions tells us that we need each other dearly, because our mourning and crying is uncontrollable and emotionally sourced way deeper than our Conscious mind can fathom. This is why the basis in every culture for a moral foot-hold on our behavior has been the Golden Rule, albeit, formed in the institution of their beliefs, religion, which infers they did so because of faith, without evidence, just knowingly and instinctively, unconsciously. Matt. 5:44: (New Testament)But I say unto you, Do Love your enemies, (1) Lev. 19:18 (Torah)Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. (2) Judaiam: (Talmud; Shab. 31a)"What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Hillel said) (3) Islam: (Sunnah)No one of you is believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. (4) Brahmanism: (Mahabharata 5:1517)This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause pain if done to you. (5) Buddhism: (Udana-Varga 5;18)Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful. (6) Confusianism: (Analects 15:23)Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. (7) Taoism: Tai Shang Kan Ying PienRegard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbors loss as your loss. (8) Zoroastrianism: (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5)That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. That Jesus added the pro-active command to start doing so is not to the contrary, that we KNOW from phylogentic sources that may pre-date even our own soecies that we are Social Animals, and ought even lay down our lives for the good of the community we live with. Bravery, duty, heroes, and self sacrifice are founded upon this one ancient ingrained Truth,mthat w need each other to survive.United we stand, divided we fall. That IS The Moral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
While I might almost agree with that post, it still does not address what your earlier example had to do with morality.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
While I might almost agree with that post, it still does not address what your earlier example had to do with morality.
Almost doesn't count except in Horseshoes. What example do you refer to here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member
|
quote:I don't think this is too difficult to explain. Evolution has made our minds quasi-morally utilitarian. We thus are able to arrive at a grasp of moral behavior because it is necessary for personal and evolutionary success. Evolution has imprinted us with the sub-conscious recognition that altruistic behaviors which increase the common good (satisfying desires of many) increases the probability that you yourself will benefit accordingly. Simultaneously, we are inherently competitive such that we are very happy to eliminate such altruistic tendencies to advance your own success, and therefore of the group. We are tribal by nature. Evolution is not merely a chance process, and therefore involves the employment of a logic. To say that no such logic exists and that what we do is mere reaction to emotions which have no particularly informative origin, is nonsensical, in my opinion. The above can be directly compared with epistemology. Our brains are formulated such that we can understand the truth about what exists if we are talking about things observable in themselves. This is probably rooted in really simple determinations like the location of trees and food, but this has created the mental scaffolding for deep epistemic analysis such as our greatest tool, scientific method. Scientific method is a calculated attempt to take our capacity to constrain the truth about things which are not observed by using things which are. It is not a (biologically) evolved thing, it is a discovered thing. I think that moral analysis is very similar. We are able to evaluate numerous cases directly from our instinctive capacities, and even arrive at consensus on occasion, but I think that the nature of the logic is incomplete, the same way we can arrive at numerous truths about the nature of the universe purely by observation, but that our understanding of the universe remains incomplete without an epistemology which takes us further. There is a transcendental moral puzzle solving method which is beyond our instincts. Specifically, our nature is tribal, which means that we are programmed to think about the group inasmuch as as a group is composed of minds that think exactly like yours. A more transcendent moral theory should be able to go deeper and ultimately arrive at the realization that the only morally discrete group is the person itself.
quote:I'm not sure I totally agree, but I would have to think about it more. That only actions are evil is was my meaning and is sufficient in any case. quote:So I can demonstrate it, but you can't? quote:Is it really so difficult to believe that the victims of the holocaust did not want to be systematically murdered? quote:My moral heuristic can deal with this. The question is whether or not the human sacrifice, if given full understanding about the consequences of the action, would wish to be sacrificed. If the answer is that he would not wish to be sacrificed, the answer is that it is a moral evil. Obviously if, in his mind, he did not want to be sacrificed, it is a moral evil, but you will notice I qualified the part about whether or not he would do so if given full understanding about the consequences. We might, for instance, consider that the sacrifice was under the influence of a drug and thus wanted to be sacrificed, but since he would not say such a thing if not under the influence, it would be a moral evil to sacrifice him. One can go much further, but I think the nature of the moral logic is at least apparent.
quote:It doesn't need to fit "neatly" (if i am understanding you correctly). It merely needs to fit by explaining both nominal moral behavior in addition to informing moral problems which are beyond instinct, requiring the use of reason. Such information might result in different emotional responses, but this is after reason. I think that my comments on the 'golden rule' illustrate this. While we may be able to instinctively put ourselves in others shoes, it is quite another matter to become that person, and experience the world as that person does. Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given. Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given. Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Everything's fine and normal until you get to here:
TC writes: but that our understanding of the universe remains incomplete without an epistemology which takes us further. There is a transcendental moral puzzle solving method which is beyond our instincts You want something beyond ourselves, something outside ourselves that will solve the difficult moral issues for us. But then you go on to contradict yourself.
A more transcendent moral theory should be able to go deeper and ultimately arrive at the realization that the only morally discrete group is the person itself. The morality isn't outside ourselves it's now inside ourselves (which is where we thought it was all along btw)
Is it really so difficult to believe that the victims of the holocaust did not want to be systematically murdered? Well no, obviously. But i have now just realised that your 'new' moral ideal is the 'do no harm' bumper sticker that we spoke about earlier. I thought we'd gone a bit further than that. My mistake (genuinely).
My moral heuristic can deal with this.
You see, I think it's a cliche and you think it's a moral heuristic. [Cliches always contain truth of course.] The question is whether or not the human sacrifice, if given full understanding about the consequences of the action, would wish to be sacrificed. If the answer is that he would not wish to be sacrificed, the answer is that it is a moral evil. Obviously if, in his mind, he did not want to be sacrificed, it is a moral evil, but you will notice I qualified the part about whether or not he would do so if given full understanding about the consequences. We might, for instance, consider that the sacrifice was under the influence of a drug and thus wanted to be sacrificed, but since he would not say such a thing if not under the influence, it would be a moral evil to sacrifice him. We're not going to disagree here. There are some attempts to claim that the victims and their families were pleased to chosen - and there may be some truth in it, just as there is obvious truth in the fact that the 9/11 terrorists wanted to do what they did - but we can't get inside another's mind to actually know. Which is what you say here:
I think that my comments on the 'golden rule' illustrate this. While we may be able to instinctively put ourselves in others shoes, it is quite another matter to become that person, and experience the world as that person does. But nothing you have said does anything that I haven't already said. Your attempts to go beyond the individual and beyond instinct - which you want to do here:
It merely needs to fit by explaining both nominal moral behavior in addition to informing moral problems which are beyond instinct, requiring the use of reason. Such information might result in different emotional responses, but this is after reason. is merely what we do when we settle our indivual instincts into societal codes of behaviour and secular law and includes the 'do no harm principle' which I've already pointed out many times. Where is this transcedance, where is the absolute?? Edited by Tangle, : Bloody quote slashes - why are they so hard to get the right way round??Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
A more transcendent moral theory should be able to go deeper and ultimately arrive at the realization that the only morally discrete group is the person itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
A more transcendent moral theory should be able to go deeper and ultimately arrive at the realization that the only morally discrete group is the person itself.
Nonsense. That would not apply to any Social Animal where the very existence of the species depends upon each member, over the long range of evolution, work for the greater good of the community, not the selfishness of the individual. Man is a Social Animal dependent upon civilization in order to adapt to the ever changing environment which forces the collective humanity to work together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3520 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
There is no species in which it's existence depends on the survival of each member.
If that were the case, species would go extinct upon the death of just one member.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
There is no species in which it's existence depends on the survival of each member. If that were the case, species would go extinct upon the death of just one member. There is no species that depends up the survival of its members since they ALL die. Social Animals, however, depended upon the willingness of each individual to put the social community above its own life, stinging enemies that is also suicidal for the bee, for example. It also seems supportive to itice the differentiation wiythin a social society where the Queen is totally dependent upon the Workers doing as they do in order that she be feed.She, on the other hand, does her specific job that extends the life of the species through reproduction. The soldiers and the drone are specialized memebrs who can not intercahngeably do the tasks of the other memebrs. Social animals need and totally depend upon one another for survival.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3520 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Social animals do depend on each other which increases likelihood of survival.
That does not mean that the individual cannot exist outside of the group. You are also making a fallacy of composition that, since some social aspect is true of bees it must be true of all animals. The dynamic of a queen and drone is unique to bees, ants, and a few other insects and that characteristic does not carry over into a mammalian counterpart. Hence, it is a very poor illustration for the point you are failing to make. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024